| Revision as of 22:01, 18 August 2010 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,333 edits →WMC reblock: r← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:10, 18 August 2010 edit undoJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,281 edits →WMC reblock: see AN/I urgentlyNext edit → | ||
| Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
| ::Sorry if my grammar was unclear. "Decline" was a noun here. Atama had already declined the unblock request. That was the admin action in question. You then re-declined it, with additional sanctions. I find this both unproductive and inappropriate. There was no ''substantial'' violation of the sanction (and it's indeed questionable if it can cover non-CC pages), and just like editors should not rely on technicalities over substance, neither should admins. --] (]) 21:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC) | ::Sorry if my grammar was unclear. "Decline" was a noun here. Atama had already declined the unblock request. That was the admin action in question. You then re-declined it, with additional sanctions. I find this both unproductive and inappropriate. There was no ''substantial'' violation of the sanction (and it's indeed questionable if it can cover non-CC pages), and just like editors should not rely on technicalities over substance, neither should admins. --] (]) 21:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :::An administrator action is any action that requires administrator privileges - declining an unblock request does not. Imposing new sanctions cannot be construed as undoing anything. Whether the violation was "substantial" or not is not relevant. If William M. Connolley is of the opinion that the restriction did not or ought not to apply to non-Climate Change-related pages, he should have appealed the restriction or the block using this argument, rather than repeating, to no apparent purpose except to make a ], what another admin had already sanctioned as a violation of the restriction. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC) | :::An administrator action is any action that requires administrator privileges - declining an unblock request does not. Imposing new sanctions cannot be construed as undoing anything. Whether the violation was "substantial" or not is not relevant. If William M. Connolley is of the opinion that the restriction did not or ought not to apply to non-Climate Change-related pages, he should have appealed the restriction or the block using this argument, rather than repeating, to no apparent purpose except to make a ], what another admin had already sanctioned as a violation of the restriction. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 22:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| * Please see ]. I intend to reverse one of your administrative actions for the reasons I've stated there, unless you post a convincing reason why I should not. As the user is blocked with talk page access disabled, I consider this a moderately pressing issue and would appreciate your prompt response as you appear to be currently online. Thank you. Notice that I have included a "no retaliation" condition on the proposed unblock to prevent WMC from hounding you. I trust that your actions were done in good faith (though in error). Best regards, ] <sup>]</sup> 22:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:10, 18 August 2010
Welcome to my talk page!
Please place new messages at the bottom of this page, or click here to start a new discussion, which will automatically be at the bottom. I will respond to comments here, unless you request otherwise. Please read the following helpful hints, as well as our talk page guidelines before posting:
- Please add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your message. This will create an identifying signature and timestamp.
- Do you have a question about arbitration enforcement? Please read my FAQ at User:Sandstein/AE.
- If you're here to inform me of a mistake I made while on administrative duty, please indicate which article is concerned by enclosing the title of the article in two sets of square brackets: ].
- If you are looking for my talk page's previous contents, they are in the archives.
Advanced 3O request
Hey Sandstein,
Since you are an AE sysop familiar with EE disputes, including the Gdanzig vote I assume, could you please take a look at this edit of mine which is being charged as going against that vote here. I ask pre-emptively, to avoid any escalation, and don't expect you to get involved in any content dispute. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 14:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Microformats#
You recently !voted on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Microformats. This is a courtesy note to let you now that I have now posted, as promised, my view there, and to ask you revisit the debate. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 15:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Deletion of page: Buddhist Terrorism
Although I disagree with your decision to delete the page, I will stay by the majority's decision. Now how can I recover the content from the deleted pages? I need to incorporate them into other articles. Children of the dragon (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
- Only admins can recover deleted content. One of the people in Category:Misplaced Pages administrators who will provide copies of deleted articles may provide it for you. Sandstein 05:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
unblocking of User:Mario1987
Is under discussion at ANI. Contacting you as blocking admin. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
SVP..? Neutral..?
How "Neutral" are they? A "Neutral" article can only be written for a "Neutral" party. Not for a non-"Neutral" fending from common "Xenophobia" - party? Would you at-least put up facts? Not just praises? http://en.wikipedia.org/Swiss_People's_Party
- Hello. Even if the subject itself is not neutral (which political parties seldom are), our article about it must be neutral, see WP:NPOV. Both praise and criticism do not belong in an article, only relevant facts and analysis referenced to reputable reliable sources, see WP:V and WP:NOR. Please read the Misplaced Pages policy pages I've linked to, they explain how to deal with these problems. Sandstein 14:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
non latin text
thanks for the unblock, I am going to change the flag to something else, a little less controversial - that should be easy. the one problem I have, is not being able to have Japanese text on my signature, I could understand if there were particular issues with the Japanese text that I had on there, or if you said no controversial or nationalistic Japanese text, but what was the problem with the previous text? Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- The problem is that most people here can't read Japanese, and so can't determine or verify whether Japanese text in your sig is another nationalist insult if somebody complains about it, which frankly is a possibility with anything you do given your history. And I am not confident in your ability to determine whether something is controversial or nationalistic. But, as I said on your user page, I am fine with you using Japanese text in your sig if you first discuss it on WP:CCN or another community forum and nobody complains about it. Sandstein 20:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
WMC reblock
I have serious misgivings about your reblock and block extension of WMC. Not only can it be interpreted as wheel warring (you undo the previous decline of another admin to impose further sanctions), I also find it exactly the "respect our authoritah" kind of block that does no good. The original block was borderline at best. We do give users wide latitude on their own pages, and we allow them to reasonably rant about admin actions on their own talk pages. Please reconsider your block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- A "previous decline of another admin to impose further sanctions" (which decline?) is not an administrator action and an action that is not taken cannot by definition be undone; consequently, my block does not undo an administrator action and is therefore not wheel-warring. On the merits, William M. Connolley violated a clear restriction, authorized by community sanction, not to edit the comments of others, period. Any latitude users may be given under certain circumstances does not authorize them to disregard explicit sanctions. Your comments therefore do not cause me to reconsider my block. Sandstein 21:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if my grammar was unclear. "Decline" was a noun here. Atama had already declined the unblock request. That was the admin action in question. You then re-declined it, with additional sanctions. I find this both unproductive and inappropriate. There was no substantial violation of the sanction (and it's indeed questionable if it can cover non-CC pages), and just like editors should not rely on technicalities over substance, neither should admins. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- An administrator action is any action that requires administrator privileges - declining an unblock request does not. Imposing new sanctions cannot be construed as undoing anything. Whether the violation was "substantial" or not is not relevant. If William M. Connolley is of the opinion that the restriction did not or ought not to apply to non-Climate Change-related pages, he should have appealed the restriction or the block using this argument, rather than repeating, to no apparent purpose except to make a WP:POINT, what another admin had already sanctioned as a violation of the restriction. Sandstein 22:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry if my grammar was unclear. "Decline" was a noun here. Atama had already declined the unblock request. That was the admin action in question. You then re-declined it, with additional sanctions. I find this both unproductive and inappropriate. There was no substantial violation of the sanction (and it's indeed questionable if it can cover non-CC pages), and just like editors should not rely on technicalities over substance, neither should admins. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
- Please see WP:AN/I. I intend to reverse one of your administrative actions for the reasons I've stated there, unless you post a convincing reason why I should not. As the user is blocked with talk page access disabled, I consider this a moderately pressing issue and would appreciate your prompt response as you appear to be currently online. Thank you. Notice that I have included a "no retaliation" condition on the proposed unblock to prevent WMC from hounding you. I trust that your actions were done in good faith (though in error). Best regards, Jehochman 22:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)